Fanatical Brexiteers are bound to be disappointed. The European Union and the United Kingdom are so deeply interdependent that a real divorce is, in practice, impossible. Forget “taking back control.” What the U.K. is almost certain to end up with is an especially close “association agreement” — a legal arrangement used for countries that aren’t part of the EU but still want to cooperate closely with the bloc.

This is good news. Both for the the U.K., which desperately needs to avoid a no-deal Brexit, and for the EU. If there’s one positive thing to have come out of the Brexit turmoil, it’s that it has highlighted an obvious fact: There should be a way to be affiliated with Europe and part of the European institutions without being a full member of the EU.

Why? That would allow the core of the EU — its original members and anyone who wants to cooperate more closely — to move toward the more integrated, federalist Europe that will be crucial if the EU is to be able to provide its citizens with prosperity and security where member countries fail to do so.

At the heart of the Brexit negotiations is the question of what the association agreement between the U.K. and the EU should look like. There are different models. The obvious one, the European Economic Area, was quickly ruled out by both sides. The British government, supported by Labour Party leadership, argues that continued membership of the single market and customs union is not compatible with the referendum result; the EU, for its part, refuses to let the U.K. benefit from the perks of the single market without abiding by the four principles of freedom of movement.

For months, arguments have raged about whether a simple free-trade agreement — along the lines of Canada’s deal with the EU — would be sufficient for the U.K. The answer was clearly no. At a government retreat in July, the Theresa May’s Cabinet finally took the decision to maintain a very significant degree of regulatory alignment with the EU.

Both sides will have to compromise.

May hoped that doing so would guarantee substantial access to the EU market, continued participation in many EU common policies and robust security cooperation. But the so-called Chequers plan didn’t go down well, and prompted a number of high-level Cabinet resignations.

There is still much to negotiate. The question of how to articulate the future relationship in the binding political declaration that accompanies the Withdrawal Agreement is a particularly thorny one.

The EU invented a new-style association agreement for Ukraine in 2014, which it later copied for Georgia and Moldova. These arrangements, more modern than the EEA, provide a useful template for the U.K.’s future relationship with the bloc, on which formal negotiations can only begin after Britain officially leaves the bloc in 2019.

The Commission is an expert on the technicalities of this stuff. But Europe is less well prepared on a political level. The bloc should use the September summit in Salzburg — convened to discuss transatlantic issues and immigration — to reflect on its future relationship with Britain. Unless the EU is ready to conclude a robust and comprehensive association agreement with Britain, it will have truculent, litigious and nationalistic neighbor on its hands for many years to come.

Prime Minister Theresa May’s Chequers plan for Brexit led to several Cabinet resignations, and did not go over well in general

Both sides will have to compromise. The U.K. should accept that it can’t keep up regulatory equivalence on services if it is not willing to come to an agreement on the mobility of people that respects EU rules on the free movement of citizens within the bloc. And the EU should be willing to accommodate a joint court, alongside joint political and technical institutions, to adjudicate on questions arising from the future arrangement. In return, the British will have to drop their inhibitions about the authority of the European Court of Justice. Most importantly, the association agreement will only work if it is dynamic; it should allow future relations to develop in a constructive way and be responsive to changing circumstances, both foreign and domestic.

That’s all fine for the short term, but it leaves the U.K. — a close ally of the EU, sharing many of its values and interests — unneccesarily distant from its partners across the English Channel.

The EU has of course left the door open for the U.K. to come back as a full member. But it would be wise to go one step further, as the cross-country Spinelli Group will propose in its manifesto this week, and prove an alternative route by creating a way to be part of the European Union.

The EU is due to revise its treaties. It should use the occasion to create a new type of “associate membership” that would entail a commitment to respect the values of the EU but not all of its political objectives.

An associate state could be expected to observe the first two Copenhagen criteria on the eligibility for membership — stable democratic institutions and a functioning market economy — but not the third, which demands adherence to the aims of political, economic and monetary union, for example.

A deep and comprehensive free-trade agreement would be a prerequisite for all associate members, but other aspects of the relationship — including customs arrangements — would vary on a case-by-case basis. One size would not fit all.

That would allow the countries that desire a stronger, more federated Europe to forge ahead, without unnecessarily alienating their closest allies. It would allow others — like the U.K. and other associate members such as Norway, Iceland and Switzerland — to upgrade their relationship with the bloc over time in a way that contributes to rather than detracts from European unity.

Andrew Duff is president of the Spinelli Group and visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre.

Related stories on these topics:

Steuersklav Erei

An article from Planet Verhofstadt (the only important proponent of a UK-EU ‘Association Agreement’). It is full of straw men. Freedom of movement mysteriously does not apply to the EU’s Association Agreements with Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia (I wonder why?). So why should it apply to the UK? Because it is part of ‘regulatory equivalence’ on services, the article claims. But the UK is not asking for regulatory equivalence in services, so why should it accept freedom of movement? The UK as a full EU member has experienced decades of a non-existent single market in services, so why should an Association Agreement be any different?

The article also fails to explain exactly what compromises the EU is supposed to make. It says the EU should accept some joint UK-EU institutions, but that in return the UK should accept the authority of the European Court of Justice. Why should the UK accept the authority of a democratically unaccountable foreign court? The ECJ is not an international court like those answering to the UN and WTO. It is the Supreme Court of a trade bloc of which the UK will not be a member. Would the EU accept the supremacy of the US Supreme Court? Hell will freeze over before the EU agrees to any joint UK-EU institutions that are not under the ultimate veto control of the ECJ.

So this article is very tendentious, stuck in the 20th century, and disingenuous in its attempts to straitjacket Brexit into a long-standing desire by EU Federalists to form a ‘two-speed Europe’.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 6:05 AM CET

Arturo A Costantino

This is nonsense. The Chequers deal has only 15% approval and May doesn’t have the votes. More concessions would be even more unpopular. And federalism is wildly unpopular not just with the British but across the EU.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 6:32 AM CET

contango one

here’s what’s happening with the brits and their exit of next march and always follow the money to know the truth:

so first question needing answers is what happened to the brussels/berlin hard line 60billion you re gonna pay us if you want to leave divorce bill and all or we’ll make life hell for you?

where did that arrogant mojo of last year go angela?

here’s where it went:

**the brits think at this point they have the upper hand and that time is on their side; they speculate the european union is slowly coming undone with the migrants issue being the single most powerful force tearing it apart; they think brussels talks tough but they have nothing; its all show
not only do they think that, they also know both brussels and berlin think this may well be the case too

**brussels/berlin think the same, namely that the brits are gaining a serious advantage on this thing; they wont admit it, they still act like they own the place but in reality they realize they are all but done as a cohesive united force and with the populists across the continent poised for monumental gains, and that next may’s election will only confirm that

**hence the hard brexiteers pressure to topple may because on the negotiating calculus they think we’re moving from the:

Berlin/Brussels: you’ll pay us a 60 billion premium to let you go and on top of that you ll take our terms on a deal we’ will effectively design and you will accept or we’ll make sure you ‘ll regret it for the rest of your lives

to

Whitehall: we’ll make a deal with you on out terms only; if you don’t agree then fine, no deal; we’re not gonna care; we’ll simply walk out, we’re not gonna give you one single penny (we’ll make unilateral deals) and you can take your union and shove it cause you’re finished anyway

and for good measure help form across the pond is available and ready to be put to use

have a nice day jean claude

life is sweet ain’t it?

Posted on 9/4/18 | 7:52 AM CET

Tony Browne

“Why? That would allow the core of the EU — its original members and anyone who wants to cooperate more closely — to move toward the more integrated, federalist Europe that will be crucial if the EU is to be able to provide its citizens with prosperity and security where member countries fail to do so. ”

We joined the EEC in 1973. The EU is now a vastly different organisation in its scope, aims and ambitions, to the organisation we joined. No one asked us if we wanted to make this huge leap from one to the other until 2016.

It is obvious that there are many fanatical Europhiles on this site and equally there are many opposed to it from countries other than Britain.

If you want the EU to change to a federal Europe with all that entails in terms of political, monetary and financial control, then surely you need to ask the citizens of each country if that is what they want?

Mind you, with immigration, the EU will no longer be the ultra liberal beacon that was envisaged 20 years ago, but what the heart and soul of the continent will be like in 20 years time is quite another question to federalism.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 8:28 AM CET

T Y

at least there is a clear understanding the UK wants no part of a federal europe….but are you sure everyone else does.

a europe that was just about trade and collaboration would have just about everyone getting deeply involved

Posted on 9/4/18 | 8:56 AM CET

Saintixe 56

A tad way too early. God knows I am pro EU but with the full knowledge it is a building in progress. Federation, confederation, League??? Who knows and certainly not in my time.

At best and as ever, it will proceed from tentative steps taken by the original couple France and Germany. Not involving Brussels but having more common laws and bodies between the two.
Naturally the Visegrad Four will frown. But such is the fate of independent countries and independent neighbours. You may dislike their scheme to open a wall between their two properties, you have to live with it. After all, it changes nothing at the EU Council and Parliament though providing first hand experience on what works and what fails.

All and all, we are here in a territory very far from Brexit and I do not see what Britain would get as benefit from this trial.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 9:34 AM CET

Henry Jones

Only a No Deal Hard Brexit will free Britain from the shackles of the EU. End all connections once and for all. The British people will persevere and their great grandchildren shall reap the rewards planted by Hard Brexit. The UK deserves this.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 9:41 AM CET

Barry Schitpeaz

Duff opinion.

Says it all really.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 9:52 AM CET

Donal O'Brien

Att Comment

The Spinelli Group
Is everything you don’t want to be
And is everything they wish THERE EU to Be

The DANGERS to Democarcy in Europe is the Forementioned group and there close Knit associate The European People’s Party

This is exactly what people have not been watching over the last 50 years the insider Rules @ Regulations being applied whitout NOTICE nor DEBATE

That but in Place Hotel California Rules one could check out at your leisure but one could never leave
It’s no good Britain kidding it’self it has to be a CLEAN BREAK
Yesterday we saw the usual day to day procedure of BARRIER when JRM payed a visit giving Jacob the impresssion a deal can be done which JRM expressed on NEWSNIGHT last night but I can assure you once again that was for yesterday ?????

BARRIER did I say that YESTERDAY did I BY GUM must have been a slip of the Tongue

One can now see what was played with
T May’s and her trip to MUTTI it is all part of creating devision in the Camps in Britain which we can see has been working

Again that sentence YANIS VOURAFAKIS keeps repeating and he should know you CANNOT deal straight with the E U
It’s there PROJECT they must Stick together

STOP a CLEAN BREAK no matter the early cost
I can assure you it will be a lot worse for BRUSSELLS
Allways remember it’s not the People and Countries of Europe that BRITAIN is trying to extract itself from but a Clique in BRUSSELLS who’s only ambition is the CONTROL OF EUROPE’S PEOPLE @ FINANCE

STEADFAST BRITAIN

Cheers for Brexit
Allways
Donal O’Brien

P.s
A friend of mine tells me the TUSK people are quite happy watching the in FIGHTING in Britain he has allways said let’s make it so HARD to leave Britain will STAY
If you don’t believe me go back to his early STATEMENTS
A WEASEL be in no Doubt

Posted on 9/4/18 | 10:12 AM CET

Leonardo M

The sooner the better! It is mandatory that the EU becomes federal, in order to become economically and politically relevant and strong in the world, and as such give prosperity and security to its European citizens. With luck, the UK will be the Cuba of Europe, but without the sun and the beaches.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 10:18 AM CET

Paul N

Mr Duff shows he can not distinguish fact from fiction. He promotes again this dream that the EU will bend over backwards to fulfill nearly all of UK’s wishes with regard to a future relationship. Quite sad really.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 10:21 AM CET

Trisul Kiboko

It all sounds reasonable at a superficial level. However, in such an association, how would the Federal States ensure that the rest do not become a base for corporate buccaneering … i.e. attracting large corporations, that would be based in the periphery and use their connections to government as a way of plundering the EU core, denying it tax revenue and prosperity.

Ireland did this with Apple, and the EU Commission barely had the means to stop it. In the sort of arrangement described here, this would be allowed and Apple would continue to essentially pay taxes in the US for profits generated in the EU. This is clearly unacceptable.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 10:51 AM CET

j l

If EU treaty needs to be modified, which makes sense from my point of view, it should not be done to fit UK.

You should not link the two issues, it is a fundamental mistake. A new treaty would need to address European needs and issues. It should not be twicked to accomodate a country that has decided to leave.

Let’s acknowledge that British do not want to be part of the European political project. They voted to leave. And even within Remainers, many do not support the Political project of Europe. UK is out.

There is enough of room within existing options to fit UK. Worst case we will end up with just an extensive FTA.

And a new treaty would take a few years to be ironed out.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 12:01 PM CET

Ian Beaumont

An opinion piece , whose author Andrew Duff is a Liberal Democrat MP , and former president of The Union of European Federalists .

Posted on 9/4/18 | 12:21 PM CET

Ian Beaumont

I just wonder why the Pro EU supporters think that being a Union of federal states will unite everyone , or bring prosperity to everyone etc .

Is this the case with any other federal states , like Germany , or the US

Doesn’t either Germany or the US have poor states ?
Is there no arguments between differing German states , or US states ?

How will things differ from just being a voluntary union of individual countries ?

Posted on 9/4/18 | 12:39 PM CET

Tony Browne

Leonardo M

You said

“The sooner the better! It is mandatory that the EU becomes federal, in order to become economically and politically relevant and strong in the world, and as such give prosperity and security to its European citizens. ”

Mandatory? Do you think the citizens of each country should be consulted on this monumental change or do you think that the ruling elites should just go and do it and ignore the protests?

Posted on 9/4/18 | 12:57 PM CET

Paul N

@Donal
“Allways remember it’s not the People and Countries of Europe that BRITAIN is trying to extract itself from but a Clique in BRUSSELLS who’s only ambition is the CONTROL OF EUROPE’S PEOPLE @ FINANCE”

Well, in my view it is the people and countries of the EU27 that the UK extracts itself from, which is I think widely shared among those people.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 1:40 PM CET

Ghost of JB

@Paul N

“Well, in my view it is the people and countries of the EU27 that the UK extracts itself from, which is I think widely shared among those people”

I know, it’s a type of divorce, and your feelings have been hurt, but honestly, grow up. The UK is leaving a voluntary association by the prescribed method, what’s offensive about that?

Posted on 9/4/18 | 2:30 PM CET

peter lintner

Federal EU is an utopia that will never happen. European politicians, media, think-tanks etc love to talk about it, but they are ALWAYS very, very, very short on details. They like the idealistic notion of federal Europe, but have absolutely no clue how it would work and how to get there. Federal Europe would need a political system, will it be parliamentary democracy, presidental system, mixed, etc? Where´s the discussion? But first and foremost federal Europe would need a unified economic system, that means budget, that means re-distribution of money, mostly from North to South and East. And that´s when all detailed discussions stop, because everyone know this will never happen. Instead of fantasizing about impossible, EU´s elite would be well advised to find some practical, realistic system of cooperation of european countries, before the EU utopia falls apart.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 3:09 PM CET

Donal O'Brien

Att Paul N

I was not going to reply to your comments
I had taught what I was TRYING to say was fairly descriptive

Anyway BRITAIN is ejecting itself from the EU is for many reasons

But I’m going to tell you the truth that no one in Westminster or Whitehall can say and what that is

The E U today is not what the People of Britain thought they had joined No

The EU is an DICDATORIAL AUTOCRATIC BEAUCRATIC ADMINISTRATION who’s ambition is for Europe to become a Federation of States
Totally Controled by BRUSSELLS in reality and in truth, Controled by GERMANY

There is no need to reply as I know from reading your submissions you would not believe what I’m saying

Anyway
Regards

Cheers for Brexit
Allways
Donal O’Brien

Posted on 9/4/18 | 3:40 PM CET

Henk Crop

The best hope for both the EU and the UK is when the EU scales down it’s ambition.
From an all encompassing stagnant bloc ( Fedration) to a lean flexible organisation.

The EU is too bureaucratic to manage 27 diverse members.
Example the Eurozone: 5 members share 87 % of the Gross National Income. 14 members share 13 %. ( Just think of what the Euro has cost the EU citizen ).

The EU must transform into an Alliance of Sovereign States, cooperating to achieve synergy.
Plus a central Institute enhancing the cooperation and performing task for the total group.

Of course the EU members have to do that.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 4:31 PM CET

Tony Browne

Peter

You said

“Federal EU is an utopia that will never happen. European politicians, media, think-tanks etc love to talk about it, but they are ALWAYS very, very, very short on details. They like the idealistic notion of federal Europe, but have absolutely no clue how it would work and how to get there.”

Never happen? You are talking politicians here, who have a very grand view of their ‘legacy’, an inflated idea of their own importance, and with some of them actually believing the nonsense they spout.

Who would ever have thought that an EEC of 7 advanced economies would invite in another 20 countries all at very varying degrees of prosperity. Or that a single currency would be instituted irrespective of the consequences? Or would deliberately bankrupt Greece? Or put a single market AND freedom of movement in place?

I think you greatly underestimate the super elite who have their own vision and are really not that interested in what the ordinary person thinks.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 4:49 PM CET

Jan Winter

Trisul: What the so called federalist are trying to ram down people’s throats is not federation in any standard meaning of that word but a thin veiled attempt to turn the EU into French-style centralist, dirigist superstate.
Thanks, but no thanks.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 5:34 PM CET

Antoine uk

EU can only survive if there is Corporate tax harmonisation. Fiscal war waged by Netherland, Ireland, Luxemburg… on their neighbours … has created huge problems and is responsible for huge corporate “fraud”, endless austerity, huge budget deficits, made EU claims of human values the laughing stock of the rest of the world (and caused Trump to slash Corporate tax just digging the budget deficit… and ensuring new crisis) and is responsible for US and EU decadence (massive misallocation of Capital and Human resources).

I was a robust pro-European but failure to harmonise tax is a deal breaker as EU would only continue to be a “banana republic” favouring corrupt corporate executives, mafias and banksters. This issue has been raised over 20 years ago. If EU cannot deal with it now, it deserves to die.
Then I hear Brussels and Rutte, Dutch PM, blaming Italy debts? This is a sick joke…

Posted on 9/4/18 | 7:05 PM CET

EU doublestandards

Wow – talk about simply failing to understand the concept of leaving.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 7:41 PM CET

contango one

drin drin drin

hello this is the front desk; wake up call for politico

dc is buzzing with woodward’s new book
and the buzz is heard as east as baltimore and as south as richmond

b-fast till 10

Posted on 9/4/18 | 7:48 PM CET

EU doublestandards

@Leonardo M
“The sooner the better! It is mandatory that the EU becomes federal, in order to become economically and politically relevant and strong in the world, and as such give prosperity and security to its European citizens.”

Firstly, I don’t see how becoming Federalised automatically equates to increased prosperity and better citizen security. Just because you term yourself something new doesn’t magically make the latter happen.

“With luck, the UK will be the Cuba of Europe, but without the sun and the beaches.”
We had a record breaking summer thanks, and we have some of the best Blue Flag beaches in Europe. Try actually knowing a bit about our country before you spout the same old stereotypes you’ve been fed all your life.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 8:00 PM CET

Paul N

@Donal

You have, from what I have read of your posts, a very twisted and suspicious view of the EU. The picture on this webpage http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/eu-trade-negotiation/ shows how e.g. the EU negotiates trade deals. It is a process in which the commission has a coordinating task. They have to do a formidable balancing act to ensure that all member countries will be satisfied with the end result. This leaves little room, if any, for their own agenda. Additionally, the EU is much more than the EU council, commission and parliament. I can not remember a thing the EU had decided or done, that has hurt me or my family or has made me very upset.

George Friedman, a leading analyst in the field of geopolitics, has written a book called “The next hundred years.” It was an eye opener to me. I do not agree with all he writes, but he sure is very good at what he does. One of the most important things I learned is that democratically elected political leaders have little room of play in the area policy. To survive, they have to keep their electorate happy. This is why mrs Merkel had to make a clear turn in her policy toward immigration and why mrs May will have to give up on her Checkers proposal. The other thing that was an eye opener for me was that countries have a strong memory, which in turn influences politics. The Russians for this reason still fear western Europe and Putin’s politics have to be seen in this context.

Leningrad Cowboy

The mistake by the EU and most europhiles commenting on here and elsewhere is they believe the UK parliament is deeply divided between remainers and leavers.

The disagreements in parliament are smoke and mirrors driven by the civil service to confound and confuse. A skill the UK is particularly good at.

The UK understands the EU political mechanisms all too well… it helped define the policies after all.

Deal or no deal… the UK will profit.

Posted on 9/4/18 | 11:08 PM CET

Little Fauntleroy

“The UK understands the EU political mechanisms all too well… it helped define the policies after all.”

Indeed, that’s why we want out. If any other country took the time to actually understand the monstrosity that has been built they’d want out too. Hell, the German courts still believe the lie that they have primacy over EU courts when they patently don’t which is why they strategically vacate rulings when there’s conflict with them – in the vain hope that nobody notices – but then I guess it’s worked so far. Only legal commentators outside Germany have noticed this.

Posted on 9/5/18 | 1:58 AM CET

Maurizio Bertini

@ Ian Beaumont
Can you grasp the fundamental difference between “arguments between differing German states, or US states” and the way arguments were dealt with in World War One and Two?
A real European Union would make a war e.g. between France and Italy or between Germany and Poland as unthinkable as a war between New York and New Jersey or between Arizona and New Mexico.

Posted on 9/5/18 | 6:31 AM CET

Paul Söllner

I’m not quite sure whether the EU and the UK actually share many of their values – since the referendum voices rejecting everything with the word ‘Europe’ attached to have become louder with the effect that even May has questioned the necessity of the ECHR.
The ECHR, however, forms the basis on which the EU is built, its core values. That is not my opinion, it is just a fact laid down in Article 6 III TEU.
The fact that the UK even seriously considers challenging the authority of the ECHR and the jurisdiction of the ECtHR makes it very clear to me, that we cannot just assume that the post-Brexit UK will be ‘sharing many of the EU’s values and interests’.
I hope it will and it would certainly benefit both sides, but then again the EU was beneficial for the UK and that could not keep them from leaving, so who knows…

Posted on 9/5/18 | 8:55 AM CET

Ian Beaumont

Maurizio Bertini ,
lol
So you cannot distinguish between now and WW1 or 2 .

Just to point out something
1 European country , Yugoslavia , had a civil war (what is a civil war ?) in the early 1990’s , not 1914 , or 1939 .

But your comment is ridiculous

Posted on 9/5/18 | 2:06 PM CET

Ian Beaumont

Paul Söllner ,

Maybe you should actually read what Theresa May was talking about .

The European courts refusal to allow the UK to deport the likes of Abu Hamza , and his sister ( Islamic promoters of hate speech against the UK , and inciting others to carry out attacks against UK citizens .

The court refused to allow the deportation , because it denied those people the right to a family life , because they had children in the UK .

Posted on 9/5/18 | 2:16 PM CET

Ian Beaumont

Maurizio Bertini,
By the way , my comparing the German federal states , or the US states was to point out that federal states have asked to leave

There are Bavarians that want separation from Germany

Posted on 9/5/18 | 3:09 PM CET

Ghost of JB

@Maurizio Bertini @Ian Beaumont

“A real European Union would make a war e.g. between France and Italy or between Germany and Poland as unthinkable as a war between New York and New Jersey or between Arizona and New Mexico”

Err, you do know that there has already been an American Civil War, don’t you?

Posted on 9/5/18 | 5:17 PM CET

Ian Beaumont

Ghost of JB,
Yes chap , but I thought Yugoslavia , being more recent was a better example 🙂

Posted on 9/5/18 | 8:52 PM CET

Steuersklav Erei

@ Paul Soellner

I certainly hope that the post-Brexit UK will not be sharing too many of the ‘EU’s values and interests’. I agree that human rights need to be strengthened, but the ECHR is a very bad way of doing it with respect to the UK legal system. The UK operates a system of Common Law ‘negative liberty’, like most of the Anglosphere. This means that all citizens have full rights except whenever democratically accountable laws place restrictions. For example, freedom of speech is inalienable, but incitement to violence is illegal.

The EU’s ‘positive liberty’ of Roman/Napoleonic Law, by contrast, means that citizens have no rights except those that are granted by the state. The wording of the European Fundamental Charter of Human Rights is evidence of this top-down legal culture, right to have this, right to do that, etc.

Strange though it may seem to a continental observer, EU rights legislation seems very authoritarian to a British audience.

Posted on 9/5/18 | 10:52 PM CET

Jacques Boote

In some counties you have the right to carry a gun.
That doesnt give the the right to shoot anyone.
The freedom to carry a gun comes with responsibilities.
I most civilised countries you have the right to freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech also comes with a responsibility.

As for the EU… In the UK the EU is not Europe, the EU is an organistion that was formed to enable trade with the hope that countries that trade with each other would be less likely to war with each other. It is a TRADE organistion. Unfortunately, it has morphed and distorted itself into something beyond its original purpose and in doing so is trying to be a world power unto itself. In doing so it has lost the purity and purpose of the original idea to itself become yet another oppressor in the world. An oppressor of its members and an entity that tries to force its authortity beyond its own borders without having any clear responsibilty to any of its members. If it creates its own army?
Who exactly is responsible for its actions….

The UK wants none of this Political union, the UK does not want to be tied to a europe that hasn’t yet grown up and is yet not ready to accept responsibility.

Posted on 9/6/18 | 12:32 AM CET

Johan Stavers

So how will a Federal Europe behave in the world? it will change the balance of power, so quickly become more war-like? similar to the US? pacify (colonize) its periphery and then start to project power on a global scale? won’t this end in a devastating world war 3?

Posted on 9/6/18 | 12:41 AM CET

EUnicorn 

@Johan Stavers

It’s funny, if funny is the word, EUrope thinks that by giving up their national staus and becoming a union of states that they can each individually avoid responsibility for the action of the ‘union’… Which is ridiculous, they actually become responsile for the whole, as part of a ‘union’, whether they voted for it or not becomes irrelevant. As part of a union, everything, good or bad, becomes a ‘joint enterprise’, one cannot avoid the conspiring in a conspiracy if one is a ‘member’.

Posted on 9/6/18 | 12:53 AM CET

John Brown

The EU in 45 years (the time between the UK’s first and second EU referendum) will be unrecognisable if it continues with its current path of open borders to people for whom tolerance, altruism, science, reasoning and democracy is alien.

Countries are defined by the people who inhabit them.

Look at the the current ME and Africa to see how Europe will look in the future.